As an Ubuntu user, I ruminated today on how it’s a pity that it’s so easy to get your hands on illegal, free copies of Windows. If everyone had to pay for it, then maybe people might start looking for free alternatives, those alternatives would get more love, get more software developed for them, be more widely supported and so forth. It struck me that while Microsoft vehemently fights software piracy, this is not a result they would like.
So: while Microsoft gets no dough from the many home users who don’t pay for Windows, the fact that everyone and his sister-in-law’s pet basking shark uses it makes it very difficult for businesses, who do pay for Windows, to switch to something else - they would have to retrain all their users. Hence Microsoft maintains its iron grip (maybe not iron these days - what’s slightly softer than iron?) on the market partially due to software piracy.
Well, we can certainly test your theory with Vista’s wide-spread use over the next several years. Volume Licensed Vista installs will need to periodically re-authenticate themselves to stay alive. Individual retail copies won’t, but their activation codes will only be usable once.
The traditional wisdom is that it was to Microsoft’s advantage to let their software go pirated by those who might otherwise look for cheaper alternatives. Something seems to have changed in their strategy recently, though.
With WGA and constant authentication systems, they are really going after the pirated copies. Personally, as someone who has in the past pirated Windows and now encounters constant problems with my legal versions (I’ve had to reauthenticate my copy of XP three times now. No hardware changes.), I think it’s going to backfire on them. A few years ago, they were easily pirated and widely desired. Now, they’re making it harder and harder, and the product is less and less desirable, and the free alternatives are getting better and better.
If microsoft does not authenticate it’s home edition software (as claimed above by Bicker) that would IMO definitely corroborate your interpretation.
Microsoft and the BSA’s strategy has always been to go medieval on a couple of businesses, threaten the rest and ignore the home user except for airing some goofy TV commercials.
You can definitely make the case that for some software producers it’s an advantage to let the home users get their stuff for free while still charging major bucks for a legal copy (see for instance, Adobe). It means potential paying customers are already used to their software without it costing them anything, and serious businesses can’t afford break the rules like that (for, for businesses, relatively small gains).
As far as I know microsoft makes most of its money for windows off of deals with hardware companies that bundle windows with new machines (just try getting an assembled new non-apple machine without windows), and large companies that take licenses for X number of chairs. I don’t think the home users are really important to them except indirectly, though those hardware sellers and possibly as “mind share”.
Yes. There are, as you say, already several software makers who do something similar. Netscape did it for ages. Red Hat used to (and I believe Fedora still does) have a model where the software is free and you pay for guaranteed support, while free community support was still widely available for the home user.
Thank you for that link. Reading it has given me the will to finally switch over to Linux. I’m downloading ubuntu right now and plan on switching all my systems over this week. The really strange thing is… I admin several Unix servers.